enough doom & gloom, okay? :)

**Oren Grad** · 16-Jan-2006, 15:16

They still offer the new F6.

And the F6 exists because they went to the trouble to develop a film camera that could share technology with the latest high-end digital bodies. If anything, that represents an effort to defend at least a small, high-end film niche as long as they can even as their sales have gone overwhelmingly digital. If one starts with a realistic view of where the market is at and what it takes for a company like Nikon to remain viable, that looks to me like lemonade, not lemons.

**Jim Galli** · 16-Jan-2006, 16:12

There are more new parts available for Model A Fords now than there were 50 years ago. How come?

**John Kasaian** · 16-Jan-2006, 18:27

Nikon's departure from LF lenses, IMHO isn't that big of a deal since, lets face it, there are a lot of those great Nikon lenses out there and unless you drop 'em or do something wierd, they're darn near immortal. Consider all the Goerz, Wollensak and Ilex lenses that cycle through eBay as well as all those truly esoteric refugees from Victorian England and Austro-Hungary.

With Fuji, Osaka, Schneider and Rodenstock still producing lenses things don't look so bleak. Heck, Nikon (and Fuji and Osaka for that matter) never did aggressively market theirLF lenses in the US and many other parts of the world anyway.

As for the Kodak CEO's remarks, even if it is a foreshadowing of things to come from Kodak is hardly an inconvenience. The same formula chemicals are available from half a dozen other sources (I guess the copyrights run out after 100 years or so) and we've already been forcibly weaned off their printing papers and the only three b&w emulsions they still offer in sheet form, while truly wonderful, aren't the alpha and omega of whats available. And all the time the popularity of LF grows!

Not only that, it seems like a couple of times a year another new camera maker shows up on the scene.

The future does look bright.

**Mark Woods** · 16-Jan-2006, 18:37

Actually Kodak did a lot of R&D in the amateur market and migrated the results to the Motion Picture Imaging market. And if you believe the rap from Sony and Texas Instruments, film is dead. But, that said, I always remind these people that like future revenue streams to think of I Love Lucy. It was shot 3 cameras on film and can be "up graded" from the original to the next best format. Digital is not archival (at least for the 100 or so years that is the conservative estimate for film and a 1000 years stored correctly according to Kodak). The half life of tape and other electronic recording mediums is 15 years. This means that the content needs to be migrated to the next medium every 7 years. Then there is the technological migration that must take place. No one has mentioned losse, the little bit of differenece between one "clone" and the next. Regarding Lucas, his first Star Wars shot on video can not be shown today in its native format, which is an interesting thought. I won't go into his adgenda with Hollywood.

Film's not dead. The world is just a different place. I heard an interview with the CEO of 2929 Productions (produced "Good Night and Good Luck") who is working with Steven Soderbourgh on 6 films that will be simoutaneously released in theatres and on DVD (and on TV/Cable if they can arrange it). He is looking for what the new paradigm is. Amazing times! Lots of ways to guess wrong and lots of new things. We do live in an interesting time.

Kind Regards,
MW

**Victor Samou Wong** · 16-Jan-2006, 21:19

Why hello there fellow Torontonian.... there are no cameras because I keep buying them all... muahahahahahaha... well ok maybe not... I'm in absolutely no place to do that.
Yeah looking for a nice crusty used 4x5 field camera with full movements in Toronto is hell.....

But hey you can get scalped at the upcoming photo show on the 22nd.

Cheers

**Jim Galli** · 17-Jan-2006, 10:25

Just had a frightening thought. Brave new world, year is 2929. The only thing the archeologists will have to give them a picture of the previous 1500 years will be films of "I Love Lucy" and a few portraits by George Hurrell. They'll ponder and hypothesize why there is a gap before and after the 150 year parenthesis covered by film.

**Michael Greer** · 18-Jan-2006, 08:40

This is a general response that was sparked by Joe Forks' post.
I used to be a BFA persuing Photography student. Since then, my life has taken a number of turns but I've always maintained a strong interest in photography. My medium format camera of choice is the Mamiya 6. As for LF I still have a much altered Speed Graphic, I used to have a Tech III, and I'm awaiting shipment of a Shen-Hao (Gasp!!) When I first got my Mamiya, the 50mm F4 G lens for that system could usually be found for right around $600. I never had the money when I saw one available back then. Fast-forward five years, and either due to inflation or the MF afficianados spilling out of the woodwork as Mr. Forks mentioned, one is hard pressed to find one and get it for less than $800. Here comes my shameless promotional statement; Thank you Lensandrepro!! I guess my point is that either there are more MF and LF users spilling out of the woodwork, as Mr. Forks speculated, or inflation truly does effect everything.

I also ask you this; How many of you out there that do your own processing and printing enjoy the "camera work" as much as the film-darkroom work?
I'll help keep film alive with all of you. Thanks.